Creationists

[UltimateReality]

Sorry to tell you this,creationist were the first scientist,atheists were the ones to sneak in the door.

really? no way? I had no idea that before there was a natural explanation for things, people didn't know there was a natural explanation for things...

So then... here we are... we've come full circle. Here's the question again. Ready for it? Take a deep breath....

What unnatural events or circumstances can you point us to that are not completely natural phenomenon?

Identify for us just one verifiable unnatural event.

Digital code inside a cell.

 

[newpolitics]

You are living in a dream world.

Appearance does not prove a designer, it simply proves that is resembles things that we know are designed. It is a subjective interpretation of what we see, not a testament to an objective reality. You're argument is really absurd! You need positive evidence to prove a designer. There isn't any, anywhere. Again, in my opinion, the ID is one big argument from ignorance:

1. Things look designed
2. We can't imagine how this might happen naturally
3. Therefore, there must be a creator.

Evolutionists Argument:

1. Things look designed.
2. We can't possibly accept that anything outside are limited worldview, as in, an Intelligent Agent is responsible.
3. Therefore, it must be some random process that we can't measure or test, or witness a modern example of.
4. Therefore, therefore, even when our evidence is shown to be totally false, we must continue with the party line, cramming our so called science in even when it doesn't fit the TOE, so that we can continue to deny the most logical explanation, an explanation that would force us to change our lives and reconcile with evil in the world.

Aside from that being a horribly constructed argument, as far as your second "premise," we have no reason to accept anything outside of the natural universe as being causal in this instance, because we have never seen any supernatural causes for anything and have no way to test or verify their existence. It is not a matter of limiting our worldview, it is simply a matter of using what evidence we have, and following that. Nothing in the evidence points to a supernatural creator. ID proponents will argue otherwise, but their worldview demands that a creator exist, so they are obligated to find it, even when the evidence doesn't indicate it. So, they find the holes in scientific explanation, and insert their hypothesis. That which you are accusing scientists of is actually what ID proponents are entirely guilty of.

 

[newpolitics]

really? no way? I had no idea that before there was a natural explanation for things, people didn't know there was a natural explanation for things...

So then... here we are... we've come full circle. Here's the question again. Ready for it? Take a deep breath....

What unnatural events or circumstances can you point us to that are not completely natural phenomenon?

Identify for us just one verifiable unnatural event.

Digital code inside a cell.

That's not evidence for a creator. It's not digital code either, but even if it was, that's still not evidence for a creator.

 

[UltimateReality]

you have zero evidence to make that claim, especially if you are asserting an unnatural cause in all of this

Then give the explanation how the first cell formed naturally, you would be the first to do so if you can.

I don't have one, and I don't need one. Doesn't make you right, just because I don't have an explanation.

Your people haven't even come close to an explanation. Yet you claim you have it all figured out. That is why they call it the "Miracle" of life. To say it arose spontaneously would deny all logic and reasoning. A self-replicating, ALIVE cell is what you seek to produce through a natural process. Now get to the lab and get busy. If it happened so easily on our planet, can it be that hard to make it happen again???

 

[Hollie]

Appearance does not prove a designer, it simply proves that is resembles things that we know are designed. It is a subjective interpretation of what we see, not a testament to an objective reality. You're argument is really absurd! You need positive evidence to prove a designer. There isn't any, anywhere. Again, in my opinion, the ID is one big argument from ignorance:

1. Things look designed
2. We can't imagine how this might happen naturally
3. Therefore, there must be a creator.

I'm still trying to get a coherent argument about what in our natural world is "unnatural". All the laws of physics appear to operate predictably and consistently everywhere in the universe we can see, even down to plank time. I don't know of a single verifiable circumstance or event in human that is the result of an unnatural event. I would prefer the supernaturalists present us with a verifiable supernatural event but that request is always met with obfuscation, silence or denial.

Do seas spontaneously part? Do bushes spontaneously erupt in flames? Do humans ever spontaneously regenerate lost limbs? Those would be pretty unnatural acts but they never occur.


It's a simple request but remains firmly unanswered by the religious folks.

Can you measure a thought?

Yes. We can measure electrical activity in the brain which produces thoughts and a host of other activities.

Did you realize that presupposing a designer that designs a natural world makes your designer unnecessary, superfluous and irrelevant?

Nicely done.

You still haven't provided us with an unnaturall event or circumstance. If go back through the thread, I've tasked you with doing so at least five times and you still pretend the question is not before you.

 

[UltimateReality]

So then... here we are... we've come full circle. Here's the question again. Ready for it? Take a deep breath....

What unnatural events or circumstances can you point us to that are not completely natural phenomenon?

Identify for us just one verifiable unnatural event.

The first cell was formed unnaturally because they once did not exist. Once the first cell was formed it produced more cells.

The universe once did not exist it formed unnaturally.

As I expected, you cannot point us to one unnatural event so you're left to denying the challenge is even posed.

That sound like a Holly technique.

Holly, I don't have time to respond to all your cut and pastes. I'm just too busy.

 

[UltimateReality]

I'm actually fascinated by your preoccupation with Dawkins. It seems that you assign to him a position of authority as it relates to your religious belief. Basically, your feverish, sweaty, chest heaving preoccupation with Dawkins belies the fact that you find his arguments convincing so that any hint of movement on his part (agnostic to atheist) is seen falsely as validation of your religion.

This is your dumbest, most uninformed post yet!!! You really need to listen to some of Dawkins speeches so you don't sound like such an ignoramus.

Settle down or its a time out, sweety.

Have your read your own posts? Go back through this thread and identify for us how many times your referenced Dawkins.

If Dawkins proclaims today that he has embraced Christianity, that won't suddenly validate your gods.

I've read them, but obviously you haven't. You are getting me confused with YWC. Now in your attempt to make me look stupid, you just made yourself look stupid...

Here is your new nickname from this point forward since you never responded to my post...

Ad Hollimen.

 

[UltimateReality]

That which you are accusing scientists of is actually what ID proponents are entirely guilty of.

Right back at you...

 

[newpolitics]

Then give the explanation how the first cell formed naturally, you would be the first to do so if you can.

I don't have one, and I don't need one. Doesn't make you right, just because I don't have an explanation.

Your people haven't even come close to an explanation. Yet you claim you have it all figured out. That is why they call it the "Miracle" of life. To say it arose spontaneously would deny all logic and reasoning. A self-replicating, ALIVE cell is what you seek to produce through a natural process. Now get to the lab and get busy. If it happened so easily on our planet, can it be that hard to make it happen again???

Who said it was easy? It took very specific conditions, and a long time. The first unicellular organisms likely didn't arise for one BILLION years after the formation of the planet, and multi-cellular organisms didn't evolve for another BILLION years after that. What about that makes you think scientists should just be able to create that in a lab? That's laughably absurd. We've demonstrated, with the Miller-Urey experiments, that amino acids necessary to build proteins can be synthesized in the lab, and demonstrated that it was possible for this to happen naturally.

Miller

 

[Hollie]

Then give the explanation how the first cell formed naturally, you would be the first to do so if you can.

I don't have one, and I don't need one. Doesn't make you right, just because I don't have an explanation.

Your people haven't even come close to an explanation. Yet you claim you have it all figured out. That is why they call it the "Miracle" of life. To say it arose spontaneously would deny all logic and reasoning. A self-replicating, ALIVE cell is what you seek to produce through a natural process. Now get to the lab and get busy. If it happened so easily on our planet, can it be that hard to make it happen again???

Who is the "your people" you refer to?

For that matter, your gods have not done what you are claiming "your people" have not done.

No design - no gods required. Again you make your gods irrelevant and superfluous.

Nicely done.

 

[newpolitics]

That which you are accusing scientists of is actually what ID proponents are entirely guilty of.

Right back at you...

Except, ID isn't science. The scientific method simply follows the evidence, and doesn't allow for what you are suggesting.

 

[UltimateReality]

I'm still trying to get a coherent argument about what in our natural world is "unnatural". All the laws of physics appear to operate predictably and consistently everywhere in the universe we can see, even down to plank time. I don't know of a single verifiable circumstance or event in human that is the result of an unnatural event. I would prefer the supernaturalists present us with a verifiable supernatural event but that request is always met with obfuscation, silence or denial.

Do seas spontaneously part? Do bushes spontaneously erupt in flames? Do humans ever spontaneously regenerate lost limbs? Those would be pretty unnatural acts but they never occur.


It's a simple request but remains firmly unanswered by the religious folks.

Can you measure a thought?

Yes. We can measure electrical activity in the brain which produces thoughts and a host of other activities.

Did you realize that presupposing a designer that designs a natural world makes your designer unnecessary, superfluous and irrelevant?

Nicely done.

You still haven't provided us with an unnaturall event or circumstance. If go back through the thread, I've tasked you with doing so at least five times and you still pretend the question is not before you.

Wow, your reading comprehension really sucks. I just did it above. The origin of life is a miracle. In fact, something just being alive is a miracle until such time as someone can produce life in a test tube. They can't even do this intentionally, much less show it occurred through a natural process. Heck, they can't even take all the existing parts in a cell and put them back together. All the kings horses and all the kings men...

 

[Hollie]

This is your dumbest, most uninformed post yet!!! You really need to listen to some of Dawkins speeches so you don't sound like such an ignoramus.

Settle down or its a time out, sweety.

Have your read your own posts? Go back through this thread and identify for us how many times your referenced Dawkins.

If Dawkins proclaims today that he has embraced Christianity, that won't suddenly validate your gods.

I've read them, but obviously you haven't. You are getting me confused with YWC. Now in your attempt to make me look stupid, you just made yourself look stupid...

Here is your new nickname from this point forward since you never responded to my post...

Ad Hollimen.

Actually, no. I've made the point before - same poster, different login.

 

[UltimateReality]

That which you are accusing scientists of is actually what ID proponents are entirely guilty of.

Right back at you...

Except, ID isn't science. The scientific method simply follows the evidence, and doesn't allow for what you are suggesting.

You are getting confused semantically. The THEORY of evolution isn't science either. People use the scientific method in an attempt to show it is valid, but it isn't science. Just like people use the scientific method to show that ID Theory is valid.

 

[UltimateReality]

Settle down or its a time out, sweety.

Have your read your own posts? Go back through this thread and identify for us how many times your referenced Dawkins.

If Dawkins proclaims today that he has embraced Christianity, that won't suddenly validate your gods.

I've read them, but obviously you haven't. You are getting me confused with YWC. Now in your attempt to make me look stupid, you just made yourself look stupid...

Here is your new nickname from this point forward since you never responded to my post...

Ad Hollimen.

Actually, no. I've made the point before - same poster, different login.

Yeah, cause YWC posted pics up of himself as a cop. I remember that.

 

[Hollie]

Can you measure a thought?

Yes. We can measure electrical activity in the brain which produces thoughts and a host of other activities.

Did you realize that presupposing a designer that designs a natural world makes your designer unnecessary, superfluous and irrelevant?

Nicely done.

You still haven't provided us with an unnaturall event or circumstance. If go back through the thread, I've tasked you with doing so at least five times and you still pretend the question is not before you.

Wow, your reading comprehension really sucks. I just did it above. The origin of life is a miracle. In fact, something just being alive is a miracle until such time as someone can produce life in a test tube. They can't even do this intentionally, much less show it occurred through a natural process. Heck, they can't even take all the existing parts in a cell and put them back together. All the kings horses and all the kings men...

Your claims to miracles are pointless.

There are no miracles required to spark the building blocks of life.

No one is required to accept your bellicose, unfounded claims to supernaturalism.

 

[UltimateReality]

So then... here we are... we've come full circle. Here's the question again. Ready for it? Take a deep breath....

What unnatural events or circumstances can you point us to that are not completely natural phenomenon?

Identify for us just one verifiable unnatural event.

Digital code inside a cell.

That's not evidence for a creator. It's not digital code either, but even if it was, that's still not evidence for a creator.

How can you not say it is digital code? You really are in denial. Here you are... from anti-ID Wiki...

Genetics

Parallels can be drawn between quaternary numerals and the way genetic code is represented by DNA. The four DNA nucleotides in alphabetical order, abbreviated A, C, G and T, can be taken to represent the quaternary digits in numerical order 0, 1, 2, and 3. With this encoding, the complementary digit pairs 0↔3, and 1↔2 (binary 00↔11 and 01↔10) match the complementation of the base pairs: A↔T and C↔G and can be stored as data in DNA sequence.[2]

For example, the nucleotide sequence GATTACA can be represented by the quaternary number 2033010 (= decimal 9156).
Data transmission

Quaternary line codes have been used for transmission, from the invention of the telegraph to the 2B1Q code used in modern ISDN circuits.

Quaternary numeral system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Hollie]

Right back at you...

Except, ID isn't science. The scientific method simply follows the evidence, and doesn't allow for what you are suggesting.

You are getting confused semantically. The THEORY of evolution isn't science either. People use the scientific method in an attempt to show it is valid, but it isn't science. Just like people use the scientific method to show that ID Theory is valid.

ID is not theory, its a religious claim.

Evolution is theory supported by fact and evidence. Thumping people with your bible doesn't validate your claims. They're false.

 

[newpolitics]

Can you measure a thought?

Yes. We can measure electrical activity in the brain which produces thoughts and a host of other activities.

Did you realize that presupposing a designer that designs a natural world makes your designer unnecessary, superfluous and irrelevant?

Nicely done.

You still haven't provided us with an unnaturall event or circumstance. If go back through the thread, I've tasked you with doing so at least five times and you still pretend the question is not before you.

Wow, your reading comprehension really sucks. I just did it above. The origin of life is a miracle. In fact, something just being alive is a miracle until such time as someone can produce life in a test tube. They can't even do this intentionally, much less show it occurred through a natural process. Heck, they can't even take all the existing parts in a cell and put them back together. All the kings horses and all the kings men...

"Miracle" is a subjective term, and meaningless therefore as an objective reference to an observed phenomenon. Second, just because we can't reproduce the origin of life in a lab, doesn't mean a god did it. You are nearing another logical fallacy, and one which embodies the entire intelligent design theory:

Argument from ignorance, also known as argumentum ad ignorantiam or "appeal to ignorance" (where "ignorance" stands for: "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false, it is "generally accepted" (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that there is insufficient investigation and therefore insufficient information to prove the proposition satisfactorily to be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four, (1) true, (2) false, (3) unknown between true or false, and (4) being unknowable (among the first three).[1] In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used to shift the burden of proof.

(wikipedia.org)

 

[Hollie]

Digital code inside a cell.

That's not evidence for a creator. It's not digital code either, but even if it was, that's still not evidence for a creator.

How can you not say it is digital code? You really are in denial. Here you are... from anti-ID Wiki...

Genetics

Parallels can be drawn between quaternary numerals and the way genetic code is represented by DNA. The four DNA nucleotides in alphabetical order, abbreviated A, C, G and T, can be taken to represent the quaternary digits in numerical order 0, 1, 2, and 3. With this encoding, the complementary digit pairs 0↔3, and 1↔2 (binary 00↔11 and 01↔10) match the complementation of the base pairs: A↔T and C↔G and can be stored as data in DNA sequence.[2]

For example, the nucleotide sequence GATTACA can be represented by the quaternary number 2033010 (= decimal 9156).
Data transmission

Quaternary line codes have been used for transmission, from the invention of the telegraph to the 2B1Q code used in modern ISDN circuits.

Quaternary numeral system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Explain to us in your own words what that means.